/m/sports_on_earth

Reader Comments and Retorts

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Sept. 19 (Royals Newswire)—The Royals’ Clark Kent became the fifth player in Major League history to play all nine positions in one game on Sunday against the White Sox. Kent added to the feat by playing all nine positions at the same time.

Kent pitched eight perfect innings but was pulled for a pinch-hitter in the ninth, and Chicago scored in the bottom of the ninth to win 1-0.

Only Ned Yost would have Superman batting at the bottom of the line-up.

I am perhaps alone, but I did not like Man of Steel. I found it boring, too much Krypton, and too fight-effect-riffic. It was not terrible, but it was by no means good. It would have been better if there was any chemistry at all between the male and female leads.

I am perhaps alone, but I did not like Man of Steel. I found it boring, too much Krypton, and too fight-effect-riffic. It was not terrible, but it was by no means good. It would have been better if there was any chemistry at all between the male and female leads.

Haven't seen it but the reviews I've read so far have been underwhelming.

Completely unsurprising. Why the hell does every movie hero need to be a mixed martial arts fighter these days? I pretty much gave up on movies when someone decided that Sherlock Holmes needed nunchuck skills.

Why the hell does every movie hero need to be a mixed martial arts fighter these days? I pretty much gave up on movies when someone decided that Sherlock Holmes needed nunchuck skills.

That is slightly supported by canon, though. In "The Adventure of the Empty House", Holmes defeats Professor Moriarty by employing what he calls "baritsu", a "Japanese system of wrestling, which has more than once been very useful to me." Conan Doyle misspells "bartitsu", but the point is the same. Holmes was proficient in at least one Japanese martial art in the books, so it's quite possible he may have been proficient in others...

Fair enough - nonetheless, I'm no Holmes aficionado, but I can't think that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle envisioned him as an MMA-style "action hero," nor would I think that so many things end up exploding in the books.

The Royals' Clark Kent became the fifth player in Major League history to play all nine positions in one game on Sunday against the White Sox. Kent added to the feat by playing all nine positions at the same time.

i am kind of over superhero movies and the endless grittiness and self-importance of them, which i welcomed at first, is growing stale for me. the turning points were movies like snow white and the huntsman and hp deathly hallows part 1. purely hollow grittiness and self-importance just for the chic. i never saw twilight but i'm confident it's in that category. the hobbit just didn't do it for me like the lotr series and i thought the super gritty yet sing songy dwarves were just ridiculous. then there is the obvious issue of franchising, and now you have to commit to a miniseries every time you see a movie, which sucks. that and as a person who writes screenplays, they break every rule and have huge holes yet are called great scripts often times. it's like you can't trust the film critics (to the small degree you want to trust them, you know).

undoubtedly, they are a superior product to their predecessors, but i really think they are going to die off pretty quickly here with nothing to replace them in terms of how to treat the superhero stories differently. maybe you'll see one about a short, fat, and bald middle-aged superhero or something, but i doubt it. their current efforts in that direction have been "hipster teen dork superhero" and that hasn't worked for me.

as far as the recent superman movies, the previous one had good reviews in general but did not make enough money to cover its insane budget, which was 250 million before marketing costs, so it was spiked even though people didn't hate it. it was pretty weird to read the articles while it was still in theaters saying "there will be no more superman movies" while shrek 4, pirates 5, spiderman 3, and batman 3 are happening. as for my opinion, i personally thought it a little too jesus-y. then they reached out to nolan for the new one, and gave it a really huge "this is oscar bait like the dark knight" marketing push. apparently it has not completely succeeded.

this is a sci-fi year though. all the juggernauts are in that category. nolan's next movie about interstellar space travel probably will be oscar bait. as will elysium.

as for spielberg and lucas saying the industry will die when these tentpoles flop, that's retarded.

I've watched the Twilight films on Rifftrax, and although of course it's not the intended experience with three guys cracking jokes over it, I certainly didn't get the impression they were "gritty". "Emo", definitely... and "self-important" in the sense that a teenager imbuing her life with drama is self-important... but not "gritty". You may have heard that there are a couple of graphic scenes, and that is true (and I'd agree that the scenes in question are ultimately gratuitous, although honestly, one of them is great). But for the most part, the reason those scenes come off as utterly insane rather than just garden-variety insane is because the rest of the films aren't like that. They're movies about vampires that sparkle, are very close to literally toothless, and generally might as well not even be vampires.

I don't disagree, though, with the general point that everything should not be gritty. Superman shouldn't; Fantastic Four for instance also shouldn't (not that those movies were, they were bad for other reasons.)

as for spielberg and lucas saying the industry will die when these tentpoles flop, that's retarded.

To be fair, that's not quite what they said. They predicted a number of big-budget films would flop, causing turmoil in the industry that would lead to a "paradigm" shift (aren't these just big words stupid people use to make themselves feel smart?) that would lead to a market where big-budget films have to charge $25 per ticket at the theater, while your art-house fare and Oscar-bait is still $7-10.

But I agree, its bunk. There's no indication that these big budget films are losing steam. I do think you will see more art-house and Oscar-bait movies go to non-theater avenues - HBO, Netflix, Google TV, whatever. But I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing.

For us in the short term not really but for the actors, studios, and all the people relying on the revenue it probably is a bad thing. The quicker it can be downloaded the less valuable the product will be.

The Royals' Clark Kent became the fifth player in Major League history to play all nine positions in one game on Sunday against the White Sox. Kent added to the feat by playing all nine positions at the same time.

The cast for Man of Steel is good, but the screenplay is pretty poor. A lot of wonky screenwriting decisions that could have been avoided, particularly if they had avoided using Zod as a villain for the first movie.

To be fair, that's not quite what they said. They predicted a number of big-budget films would flop, causing turmoil in the industry that would lead to a "paradigm" shift (aren't these just big words stupid people use to make themselves feel smart?) that would lead to a market where big-budget films have to charge $25 per ticket at the theater, while your art-house fare and Oscar-bait is still $7-10.

The studios are so much more aware of the overseas market nowadays, that it's nearly impossible for a halfway well made big budget movie to truly flop.

The cast for Man of Steel is good, but the screenplay is pretty poor. A lot of wonky screenwriting decisions that could have been avoided, particularly if they had avoided using Zod as a villain for the first movie.

Haven't seen it, but I am so glad that there was no Lex Luthor in the movie, it automatically gets a one star bump up from me when I do see it. (mind you, a "dark" superman is so ####### retarded that I wouldn't be surprised if the producer believes in creationism) Most of my friends who have seen it have liked it, but they also like the Fast and Furious franchise and the Star Trek reboot so I'm not taking them too seriously.

I will continue to wail that origin movies for superheroes is not a necessity, it's a waste of screen time etc. If it naturally fits in with the story they want to tell, sure add it, but they are not necessary any more than they are necessary for a science fiction movie, a Western or a cop movie.

No interest whatsoever in Man of Steel, of course, but several fellow comics fans have found it poor-to-loathsome.

What a shock. As a life-long comics reader, I'd sooner listen to Chip Caray and all the Brennamans talk about grunge rock than hear comic book fans talk about movies. No bigger bunch of joyless clowns exist on the topic. Sorry, gef.

I just returned from it. This Superman is not a "dark" Superman at all. He's as dark as a troubled kid finding himself who turns out a hero could end up, which is not very. He isn't Superboy, obviously.

Man of Steel wasn't any kind of masterpiece, but it's in the upper half of recent comic-book films. Better than Captain America was, IMO. The fan trouble with the climax I can understand, and it irritates me in the same way that the end of the first reboot Star Trek ends. This movie handles that kind of thing better than the first Star Trek did, though.

I have no idea where they can go for #2, which is definitely coming. I hate comic book movies that lean on "OH THE HERO IS WEAKER NOW LIKE US" because that is dull as crap, but with Superman, what else are you going to do? (And that tack is going to utterly bomb for the next Wolverine movie, BTW. It is going to SUUUUUUCCCCCCK.) I'd go completely interstellar with the next Superman, but that's what I like, of course, so I'm probably biased.

I have no idea where they can go for #2, which is definitely coming. I hate comic book movies that lean on "OH THE HERO IS WEAKER NOW LIKE US" because that is dull as crap, but with Superman, what else are you going to do? (And that tack is going to utterly bomb for the next Wolverine movie, BTW. It is going to SUUUUUUCCCCCCK.) I'd go completely interstellar with the next Superman, but that's what I like, of course, so I'm probably biased.

I keep hoping for a Brainiac villain movie.

What a shock. As a life-long comics reader, I'd sooner listen to Chip Caray and all the Brennamans talk about grunge rock than hear comic book fans talk about movies. No bigger bunch of joyless clowns exist on the topic. Sorry, gef.

As a comic book fan, I agree with this assessment. At the same time, as a comic book fan, you see what is clearly studio interference destroying a product that they invested a #### ton of money in. Some of the changes work, but the fact that every single X-men movie seems to make the same joke about spandex and costumes, shows that they still aren't getting the full comic book enjoyment from a franchise.

A lot of the first movies in a series has been good, but the studio interference has constantly destroyed the sequels..."now that we don't have to tell an origin, let's amp up the action". Of course the studios insistence that every character has to have the same origin has really ruined the range of possibilities.

Look at Superman...alien species origin, yet almost all of his villains have been normal humans or created by normal humans or fellow Kryptonians... why not recognize that in the Superman universe alien species exist and make great villains? (from the comic book universe you have Darkseid, Despero, Starro, Lobo, White Martians, etc.....each of which would be a unique story.)

The new Batman series gets it. Joker told a different origin and they never did identify his real origin. No need to. Bane's origin was told in flashback and was integrated into the story, even Ra's Al Ghul origin was not really touched on in the first movie, nor was the Scarecrow's. None of these characters really had an origin that tied into the main character, just that their stories crossed at some point in time. None of this "Sandman created Spiderman" "Joker created Batman(Keaton)" "FF created Dr Doom" "Spiderman inspired creation of Green Goblin" crap. (to be fair, Ra's Al Ghul did have Bruce's parents killed, so this falls off the rails a little) But the point still stands, they don't waste a lot of time on the origin story, and don't feel the need to tell the origin in a linear story line.

The Captain America movie would have worked just fine with his origin being told in flashback. They can then speed through the boring slow crap that slows down getting to the actual story. I always envisioned that the first scene in a Captain America movie would have been a battle in 1943, where he has his shield and is fighting Nazis, and they find a point in the story to tell the flashback origin that takes a few moments. Captain America is by far my favorite hero(I have every Captain America comic since 1985) and liked the first movie, but it had so many ways it could have been better(and again, the common origin for the Red Skull/Cap was one of the things they could have gotten rid of)

I've watched the Twilight films on Rifftrax, and although of course it's not the intended experience with three guys cracking jokes over it, I certainly didn't get the impression they were "gritty". "Emo", definitely... and "self-important" in the sense that a teenager imbuing her life with drama is self-important... but not "gritty".

I think Watchmen is a great super hero film, does anyone else agree?
Loved it, but I can't imagine a non-comic book fan having the same joy out of it that I did. It just seemed a little dense for the average movie goer.

I liked the film just fine, and I think the extended edition will make for a better re-watch later.

That being said, the experience of seeing the first trailer for the first time on a big screen - and being a child of the period, reading Watchmen as a teen as they came out - was about the coolest thing I've ever seen in my entire life.

That being said, the experience of seeing the first trailer for the first time on a big screen - and being a child of the period, reading Watchmen as a teen as they came out - was about the coolest thing I've ever seen in my entire life.

The trailer was insanely awesome. Great song by the Smashing Pumpkins:

As somebody who has never read the comics. Watchmen was easily the worst piece of crap movie, I have seen in the last 10 years or so. Holy #### was that awful. If you think that movie had any redeeming features, I think less of you as a human being.

As somebody who has never read the comics. Watchmen was easily the worst piece of crap movie, I have seen in the last 10 years or so. Holy #### was that awful. If you think that movie had any redeeming features, I think less of you as a human being.

C'mon there has been an entire twighlight series, 6 fast and furious movies. The piece of #### star trek movie/James Bond movies(Ohh....let's watch a one hour of ESPN and watch a poker tournament--oh wait, this is a James Bond movie?). Ben Stiller has been in a dozen movies or so. Vin Diesel and the Rock have starred in movies. The third Pirates of the Caribean movie. The Clash of the Titans. Etc.

The movie might have had some flaws, but it's far from one of the worst movies of the past 10-20 years.

So am I the only guy who wishes the Captain America movie had stayed in the 40s and 50s? I'd much prefer a 30s style noir Batman too. Well, probably not, I'm sure they'd make terrible movies of them but still.

Human superheros seem more, ummm, believable (I know) in the days with a little less impressive technology. It's like that early Buffy where the books said even an army couldn't defeat the super evil vampire and somebody had the bright idea that maybe 12th century armies weren't quite up to today's standards and she takes him out with a rocket launcher. I'd imagine an armor-piercing tank shell might do a wee bit of damage to Iron Man. At least Dune cooked up "logical" reasons to have interstellar travel and swashbuckling knife fights.

Alien or mutant superheros -- well, at least I can pretend to believe they've got magical powers although I remain unimpressed by invisibility and super-stretchiness.

Personally, I liked Man of Steel. I mean, yeah, it was hardly a masterpiece, but as Lassus said, it's still probably in the upper half of Superhero movies. Cavill, while certainly no Reed, was a good choice for the type of Clark/Kal/Superman that the movie called for (interestingly enough, I had no problem with Routh's Superman, just problems with the movie he was in). Amy Adams was very good as Lois and for the first time in the films I actually got the feeling that she was a actual good reporter. Actually, the cast in general is a big strength, as are the special effects- the final battle SFX make the Avengers look like a low-budget cable movie.

I had problems with the ending, but I've got an open mind since from what I've read it was a very conscious choice to emphasize the point that Superman was at in his career and perhaps provide some insight in his motivation later on, with it shaping the way he pursues his superhero career going forward.

Next time, I have to think, you need to have Lex Luthor. I'm hoping they go with the billionaire inventor and tycoon Lex instead of the mad scientist Lex, and based on the fact you see "LexCorp" stuff all around Metropolis during the final fight, I think that is the way they will go. I'd like to think that maybe Lex wouldn't be so much an outright villain walking around in a powersuit so much as a man behind the scenes watching from his tower as his plans try to get Superman, with perhaps the full-on evil Lex coming in the third movie or something.

The trailer was insanely awesome. Great song by the Smashing Pumpkins:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R3orQKBxiEg

I forgot how ####### awesome that trailer was, and how I went from "Oh god, they're gonna screw up my favourite book!" to "Oh god, this might actually be great!" just from seeing that the first time (and the next 5 times in a row).

I think they did as well as could be hoped in a movie that is less than 6 hours in length. Nothing can match the book and the dense details and story, but that was pretty damn good.

I really hope someone gets around to buying the rights to Alan Moore's other properties (like "Top Ten", "Tom Tomorrow"). I know they ###### up "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen", but those other ones could be a ton of fun to see on the big screen.
(Or "Astro City", by Busiek)

One thing I completely forgot to mention was that I really loved Zimmer's score for Man of Steel. A+. I might not have even seen the film in a theater if not for the music in the trailers.

Ironically, the first Superman still holds up as one of the best superhero movies.

The problem was, even at age 9 I knew that flying around the world to turn back time was shockingly idiotic. Completely ruined any enjoyment that came prior for me, and I always now look back with derision.

CFB - ragging on Casino Royale is dumb, that was the best Bond film in 30 years, easy.

So am I the only guy who wishes the Captain America movie had stayed in the 40s and 50s?

That would have been fine with me.

...as are the special effects- the final battle SFX make the Avengers look like a low-budget cable movie.

What? No. The style was certainly different, and Avengers wasn't fought on a world with no sunshine or high resolution, or wherever the hell the Snyders live.

Lastly, some people whined and moaned about product placement as we were leaving, as if they themselves live in world there is no consumerism. I myself do not notice IHOP or Nikon in movies, as I see these things EVERY DAY IN REAL LIFE. Good lord.

I have no idea where they can go for #2, which is definitely coming. I hate comic book movies that lean on "OH THE HERO IS WEAKER NOW LIKE US" because that is dull as crap, but with Superman, what else are you going to do?

Fundamental problem of Superman: he has essentially unlimited power and is invincible, so there's only two ways to challenge him at all: make him a complete idiot, or use Kryptonite to steal his powers, so he's just "Man". Both approaches suck, which is the fundamental problem with the Superman franchise.

I suffered through some twilight movies with my girlfriend. They are insanely idiotic, but at least vaguely coherent, which is about 5 levels up on Watchmen.

6 fast and furious movies.

Seen 3 of them. They are run of the mill action movie bad, nothing to get overly offended by.

The piece of #### star trek movie

Was fine, not great, but cromulent.

James Bond movies(Ohh....let's watch a one hour of ESPN and watch a poker tournament--oh wait, this is a James Bond movie?).

Best bond movie since Sean Connery stopped making them, even if he couldn't play poker worth sh!t, and was taking every opportunity to take his shirt off. If you are going to rag on one of the new Bonds, "Quantum of Solace" is the bad one.

Ben Stiller has been in a dozen movies or so.

Run of the mill bad comedies. Plus Zoolander is one of the best comedies ever, which makes up for a lot.

Vin Diesel and the Rock have starred in movies.

Not seen all, those I have are run of the mill bad action movies.

The third Pirates of the Caribean movie.

The second one was bad enough that I bailed on the franchise.

The Clash of the Titans. Etc.

Not seen it.

The movie might have had some flaws, but it's far from one of the worst movies of the past 10-20 years.

Wrong. Saying Watchmen had some flaws, is like saying Yuniesky Betancourt as a baseball player has some flaws, when there isn't a single thing he is even remotely competent at.

Fundamental problem of Superman: he has essentially unlimited power and is invincible, so there's only two ways to challenge him at all: make him a complete idiot, or use Kryptonite to steal his powers, so he's just "Man". Both approaches suck, which is the fundamental problem with the Superman franchise.

QFT.

Watchman: Good, but I adored the comic so I am biased. Had one of the best opening credits ever as well. Some of the casting/acting was weak though (Rorschack was spot on though).

Captain America: I hate origin stories in my movies and love Cap (favorite super - yes I am a geek), so I expected to hate it. Found it wonderful. Got the character spot on in every aspect with great fan shout outs and a good story (with pretty good villain).

Avengers: Maybe the best Super movie ever, certainly innner circle (Major flaw was Loki is not the best villain, it was true to the comics, but he has always been a bit feeble for me). Certainly the greatest team super movie ever. The way they shared the spotlight across the heroes letting them all shine in their own ways was brilliant.

Captain America: I hate origin stories in my movies and love Cap (favorite super - yes I am a geek), so I expected to hate it. Found it wonderful. Got the character spot on in every aspect with great fan shout outs and a good story (with pretty good villain).

I definitely wanted to like it but simply not enough Captain America-ing in the film and as a result I became really bored. And when the majority of his action showed up in a montage I had to give the thumbs down.

Fundamental problem of Superman: he has essentially unlimited power and is invincible, so there's only two ways to challenge him at all: make him a complete idiot, or use Kryptonite to steal his powers, so he's just "Man". Both approaches suck, which is the fundamental problem with the Superman franchise.

Very true. Superman is a difficult character because he's omnipotent, but in the hands of a good writer he can be very interesting. I would say that he's high risk, high reward. By contrast, it's not that hard to write an interesting Batman story.

To clarify - not that anyone cares - I am very middle of the road on Watchmen. Thought the comic was completely brilliant, and neither loved nor hated the movie. Parts were great, parts were awful, and while liking it rather thought the whole was less than the sum of the parts. (I don't mean it at all as a knock on the movie to say that they excitment of the trailer really outpaced any excitement I had watching the movie.)

This is actually what I thought of Moore's other recent-ish movie adaptation, V. Just very middle-of-the-road, although... not quite as good as Watchmen, I think. An easier story to tell and I would expect it to compare more favorably to Watchmen than it does in my memory.

Fundamental problem of Superman: he has essentially unlimited power and is invincible, so there's only two ways to challenge him at all: make him a complete idiot, or use Kryptonite to steal his powers, so he's just "Man". Both approaches suck, which is the fundamental problem with the Superman franchise.

Very true. Superman is a difficult character because he's omnipotent, but in the hands of a good writer he can be very interesting. I would say that he's high risk, high reward. By contrast, it's not that hard to write an interesting Batman story.

There's basically three different Superman plotlines. 1) another kryptonian(s); 2) kryptonite; 3) putting KK's friends/family or innocent bystanders in danger, and make him save them/ present a situation where he can't save them

Which imo makes it pretty impressive that they managed to milk Smallville for 10 seasons...

Avengers: Maybe the best Super movie ever, certainly innner circle (Major flaw was Loki is not the best villain, it was true to the comics, but he has always been a bit feeble for me). Certainly the greatest team super movie ever. The way they shared the spotlight across the heroes letting them all shine in their own ways was brilliant.

Really enjoyed Avengers, though I thought it was fairly predictable. My only real gripe is that they blatantly copied the ending of Independence Day.

The first 2 new Batmans (Batmen?) were great imo, but rises was pretty terrible. I don't really watch superhero movies to see a broken down shell of a former hero... And they really beat you over the head with the whole failure/redemption angle: his gf is dead; he's a cripple; he's a social outcast; Wayne Enterprise is bankrupt; he is losing Wayne Manor; his save the world project failed; he chased away Alfred; Bane broke his back and throws him in a dark hole to rot; AND HE'S FAILING THE POOR LITTLE ORPHANS! WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

i mean it's still lightyears better than Watchmen, but yeah pretty terrible.

the hobbit just didn't do it for me like the lotr series and i thought the super gritty yet sing songy dwarves were just ridiculous

I've seen the latter films but not Hobbit. Probably, unless one has read all the books (perhaps even if one has read them), comparing Hobbit to LOTR is bound to be frustrating, as they are very different in kind. Though LOTR has its share of humor and Tolkien-puns (which I love but many despise), it is at heart a very serious work. The Hobbit has serious parts and shadows of great events (of which Tolkien, by his own admission, had but vague understanding as he wrote the earlier book), but it's mainly a lighthearted work, and its "asides to the listener" make it obvious it was intended to be read aloud to young people. It's quite effective that way - my (then) 6-y-o granddaughter wept at the Thorin Oakenshield bedside scene. Without seeing Hobbit I can't say how faithfully it stayed to the book, but just filming it was a dare - the book's character seems more appropriate to have been left in cartoon format.

I definitely wanted to like it but simply not enough Captain America-ing in the film and as a result I became really bored. And when the majority of his action showed up in a montage I had to give the thumbs down.

I don't understand this at all. It was the rare movie where the origin story told us about the character and who he was. Basically I think they got the character of Cap spot on - the scene "so you want to kill Nazis'?" the various training sequences, and so on. I was not fond of the "Buy Bonds" sequences, but they were important to his character development and pay off when he is at the front.

Regarding the montage and action, I think the director rightly decided that it was better to leave the audience wanting a little more combat than having too much combat (see Man of Steel for that decision in the wrong direction). But to me Cap is not about fighting, fighting is something he does because he has to.

Yes I am a Cap fanboy, feel free to ignore me on the subject.
---

Superman is better (IMO) when the story is more about everyone around Supes and less about the boring god with a cape. There needs to be strong and interesting other non-god characters, throw in some ethics around being a god in a world of mortals and enough Super Action! to keep the proles happy and you can make a good movie. Superman is a bit like Hulk, the hero incarnation is iconic as heck, but past that not very interesting except in a targeted limited way.

The Hobbit is pretty bad. It has almost none of the charm and fun of the book. Jackson has treated it just like LOTR, and they're completely different stories. And there's way too much CGI. It's distracting.

And they really beat you over the head with the whole failure/redemption angle

It was not enough they beat him down once, but they had to do it a second time! Gack Rises was terrible. Everything bad about Dark Knight cubed and much less that was good about it. Comparing DKR to DK is interesting in the fine line between very good and very bad in a movie.

QFT. The golbin mine sequences were almost physically painful in their stupidity and CGI "glory".

It was not a terrible movie, but it was not great either. Just OK. I think most of the blame goes to trying to make it a trilogy. Cut the crap, streamline it and make it a great movie (or two if you insist). There is just not enough there to be a good trilogy and it shows in how every scene goes on long enough you wish it would end already.

Wife and I saw MOS yesterday. Not bad, but not very...heroic. And Amy Adams is miscast as Lois Lane. (Which Primate said that liking Amy Adams was equivalent to wanting to have sex with a sad-looking baby?)

It's a Big Damn Action Movie. I started get bored amidst all the carnage. (And who's going to pay the trillions of dollars needed to re-build Metropolis?)

I personally thought it a little too Jesus-y

In the movie, Clark Kent is 33 years old, just like You-know-who. (Interestingly, that makes his birth year 1980, the year the first Superman movie came out!)

My problem with Captain America was that the villain barely seemed threatening to any of the "good guys." He was mostly attacking other Nazis and by the time he was interacting with Americans, he was losing badly and constantly retreating. I think it would have been much better with the faceless German army as the opponent instead of a supervillain who never seemed very super.

Right. The Hobbit is a fun, compact adventure story. Stretching it to three movies and making it fairly serious makes no sense. Obviously three movies will make more money than one, but given the cost of each movie, they'll have to continue to do really well to get a significant profit.

Um. He's a soldier. I can't understand how you could say he's not about fighting.

He is not there to kill Nazis, he is there because he doesn't like bullies. As I said fighting is somethign he does (and we see plenty of it, how long a movie did you want?), but fighting is not his reason for being, it is a means to an end.

Not bad, but not very...heroic. And Amy Adams is miscast as Lois Lane.

Correct, Superman is suppossed to be a paragon, a hero, but he did not seem connected to the world in any real sense, other than perhaps to his parents, and wandering the Earth occasionally doing the odd good act as a hobo hero really did not work for me

I think both leads could have been fine, but the shocking lack of any chemistry at all between them was dismal. Maybe it was her fault, maybe his, maybe other forces but it sure was there.

Every problem with the Hobbit is part of the attempt to basically make it into a lesser LotR instead of allowing it to be a different story with a different feel. They attempt to sketch the whole world instead of focusing on Bilbo. They attempt to make Thorin into a ranger hero with a backstory to be more like Aragorn (he barely even looks like a Dwarf). And they put in far too many battle scenes because the Lord of the Rings is full of battles.

Every problem with the Hobbit is part of the attempt to basically make it into a lesser LotR instead of allowing it to be a different story with a different feel. They attempt to sketch the whole world instead of focusing on Bilbo. They attempt to make Thorin into a ranger hero with a backstory to be more like Aragorn (he barely even looks like a Dwarf). And they put in far too many battle scenes because the Lord of the Rings is full of battles.

Just re-read Hobbit and from the comments here, I should leave it at that. Thorin like a ranger? Tolkien's complex combo of nobility and avarice makes Thorin a notable character, with a happy/sad ending that fits perfectly, but it sounds like the movie has turned him inside out.

And IMO the LOTR battle scenes were wa-a-a-ay too drawn out, so hearing others say there are too many in Hobbit gives me fair warning. I'm kind of a purity-Nazi when it comes to LOTR; enjoyed the movies but thought Jackson took too many liberties with it. Perhaps most egregious: with far more good/relevant material than can fit in 3 movies, he wastes time on a made-up gratuitous (to me) scene bringing Frodo and Sam to Osgiliath.

Fundamental problem of Superman: he has essentially unlimited power and is invincible, so there's only two ways to challenge him at all: make him a complete idiot, or use Kryptonite to steal his powers, so he's just "Man". Both approaches suck, which is the fundamental problem with the Superman franchise.

I've long thought an interesting wrinkle for Superman are shades of gray where "what the right thing to do" isn't necessarily clear cut. Fancypants kinda touches on it in 56 - when you have many to save, and can't save them all, who do you save? Do you save the life of someone you know will hurt people? Is is justice to let them die instead of getting their day in court?

Superman is boring when he's rescuring buses from cliffs and thrwarting over-the-top evil villains from using a laser ray. What is more interesting is delving into the question - what is truth, justice, and the American way?

Superman is boring when he's rescuring buses from cliffs and thrwarting over-the-top evil villains from using a laser ray. What is more interesting is delving into the question - what is truth, justice, and the American way?

Back during WWII they'd have covers showing Superman punching out Hitler, but you couldn't have him do that in the stories... also the obvious question was, if you really had a superman, shouldn't he go over to Nazi Germany and clean house? At least in Watchman it was touched upon that the existence of a "superman" (Doctor Manhattan)could/would be destabilizing and have international profound repercussions

I've long thought an interesting wrinkle for Superman are shades of gray where "what the right thing to do" isn't necessarily clear cut. Fancypants kinda touches on it in 56 - when you have many to save, and can't save them all, who do you save?

In the first Christopher Reeve movie Lex's GF, before she rescued him from kryptonite, made superman promise to save her Mother's hometown first before saving California, meaning he got to California too late to stop the blast and save Lois

I never understand this. They just met. Love at first sight is an old, dumb idea. I do think Amy Adams wasn't self-assured enough, however.

I think you are missing what I mean regarding chemistry. I am not expecting love at first sight between the two, but some spark (positive, negative, something!). They are the leading characters their interactions on screen should have interest, there should be an energy between the two (I don't kow how to describe it better at the moment, sorry).

Between LL and Superman in MOS there was ... nothing. It was totally flat. In the original Superman those two had great chemistry, in both Superman/LL and CK/LL. It was different, but clearly there in both instances.Chemistry is not always romantic, for example in Avengers in the early Hulk/Black Widow scenes those two had a chemistry. Scenes with them in it were interesting partially because the relationship, the reactions, between those characters was interesting. In scenes in MOS between them it was ... two people talking. No energy at all.

Captain America: I hate origin stories in my movies and love Cap (favorite super - yes I am a geek), so I expected to hate it. Found it wonderful. Got the character spot on in every aspect with great fan shout outs and a good story (with pretty good villain).

Agreed. Not a fan of superhero movies based on actual comics (as opposed to superhero[esque] movies not based on actual comics -- loved Super, really liked The Specials & Special, to name a few, & thought highly of even kid-oriented fare like Sky High, Zoom Academy [actually based on a rather obscure indie from awhile back, I gather] & the like] but made an exception & rented CA in part because Cap is also probably my fave superhero & in part because of the presence of the Howling Commandos, despite the regrettable omission of a recognizable Nick Fury (my favorite comics character, period).

Fundamental problem of Superman: he has essentially unlimited power and is invincible, so there's only two ways to challenge him at all: make him a complete idiot, or use Kryptonite to steal his powers, so he's just "Man". Both approaches suck, which is the fundamental problem with the Superman franchise.

It's said that the three hardest comic books to write are The Flash, Superman, and Justice League (in reverse that order).

To write the Flash, you need to come up with a way that Barry/Wally/Jay/Whoever doesn't just beat the ever-loving #### out of the antagonist within the five seconds.

With Superman, you need to come up with a way that Superman can't defeat the antagonist in five seconds using either super-speed or any of his many additional powers.

And with Justice League, you have to come up with an antagonist(s) that can somehow face a team that has not just Superman and the Flash, but also Wonder Woman, Green Lantern, Aquaman, the Martian Manhunter (or Cyborg, since apparently DC wanted to screw up the continuity of both JLA and the Teen Titans in one fell swoop at the last reboot) AND Batman. And maybe Green Arrow, the Atom, Firestorm, a stretchy guy like the Elongated Man or Plastic Man, Zatanna and a Hawkperson, too.

It's said that the three hardest comic books to write are The Flash, Superman, and Justice League (in reverse that order).

This is why I find Marvel characters much more interesting than DC. DC tends to have archetypes who play at being human, Marvel has humans with powers. But to each their own, obviously, because many people I know and respect prefer DC.

I definitely wanted to like it but simply not enough Captain America-ing in the film and as a result I became really bored. And when the majority of his action showed up in a montage I had to give the thumbs down.

That is my problem with the movie, yes it does a good job of explaining who Cap is, and it's not a bad origin movie, but it wasn't really necessary. Captain America is the guy who is able to command Thor and Tony Stark, and both listen. It doesn't show enough "awe" when it comes to Captain America in battles. There wasn't a "He's just one man, we are many!" moment.

Really enjoyed Avengers, though I thought it was fairly predictable. My only real gripe is that they blatantly copied the ending of Independence Day.

I used to have a problem with this but stopped. Basically the concept is sound, in Michio Kaku's book "Physics of the Impossible" he talks about exo-suits, and pretty much states that if something like that happens, it's going to more than likely use an external power source(of course it would be an external charger, with the suits having a short battery life) So my real gripe was that the aliens wouldn't just power down without their external source. First off they are living beings and probably could have walked around with the suits, and second off, the suit would more than likely have a battery system, so it wouldn't be immediate power down. But then I looked at what you would have to do in the movie to show that, and it adds another 20 or so minutes, when the outcome is the same.(The aliens would attempt to hide someplace to cobble together any technology they can, while the human soldiers would hunt them down... it doesn't really change the story, so I can see why they would go with the simple "No power, power down.")

There's basically three different Superman plotlines. 1) another kryptonian(s); 2) kryptonite; 3) putting KK's friends/family or innocent bystanders in danger, and make him save them/ present a situation where he can't save them

I would add a story explaining why he doesn't just do what he did in superman 4(throw away all the nukes). It isn't a bad idea (and has been done in the comics, at least alternate storylines) to explore why Superman shouldn't just make himself Emperor of Earth, or Protector of Everyone(where he goes 24 hours non-stop, saving everyone he can all day long)

Superman works when you exploit his clean cut boy scout image and make him have to defend those actions. The movies generally do a poor job of that(haven't seen Man of Steel, so can't say, but I'm assuming from this thread that they don't come close to that) . Many of Lex Luthor's plots in the comics often times have an easy way for Superman to defeat him, if he was willing to get his hands dirty, and Lex knows he won't, so Supes has to look for a better option, and that is where it becomes tough.

Also V is a really great movie, and made me realize that dystopic stories don't all inherently have to suck.

I liked V a lot, but I generally like pretty much all dystopic stories.

Back during WWII they'd have covers showing Superman punching out Hitler,

Not sure if Superman ever punched Hitler, but it was on the cover of the first Captain America Comics.

I would add a story explaining why he doesn't just do what he did in superman 4(throw away all the nukes). It isn't a bad idea (and has been done in the comics, at least alternate storylines) to explore why Superman shouldn't just make himself Emperor of Earth, or Protector of Everyone(where he goes 24 hours non-stop, saving everyone he can all day long)

Not that I remember. Maybe an issue or two, but not the full story. Huge Gaiman fan, less of a Moore fan. But whatever I did read never made an impression on me at the time. I wasn't a big deconstructionist fan.(although Squadron Supreme and Watchmen are both excellent)

I used to have a problem with this but stopped. Basically the concept is sound, in Michio Kaku's book "Physics of the Impossible" he talks about exo-suits, and pretty much states that if something like that happens, it's going to more than likely use an external power source(of course it would be an external charger, with the suits having a short battery life) So my real gripe was that the aliens wouldn't just power down without their external source. First off they are living beings and probably could have walked around with the suits, and second off, the suit would more than likely have a battery system, so it wouldn't be immediate power down. But then I looked at what you would have to do in the movie to show that, and it adds another 20 or so minutes, when the outcome is the same.(The aliens would attempt to hide someplace to cobble together any technology they can, while the human soldiers would hunt them down... it doesn't really change the story, so I can see why they would go with the simple "No power, power down.")

My complaint wasn't about the physics. If I was going to nitpick comic book physics, I would have walked out when the 100000 ton aircraft carrier lifted itself into the sky.

My complaint was that they literally stole the ending from another movie.

Back during WWII they'd have covers showing Superman punching out Hitler,

There was a story written for a magazine where Superman hauled Hitler and his then-ally Stalin to the League of Nations, but if memory serves most of the golden age Superman vs. Hitler stuff stuck to the covers, like of him and the Dynamic Duo throwing balls at carnival versions of the Axis leaders.

Quick logistical question that's always bugged me about Superman: How does his x-ray vision enable him to see anything that isn't made of lead? Wouldn't it just keep on going through things until it got to something not susceptible to penetration by the rays? It's not like there's any reason that it should pierce a wall but not anything behind the wall, correct?

Quick logistical question that's always bugged me about Superman: How does his x-ray vision enable him to see anything that isn't made of lead? Wouldn't it just keep on going through things until it got to something not susceptible to penetration by the rays? It's not like there's any reason that it should pierce a wall but not anything behind the wall, correct?

And how does Susan Storm see when she is invisible, when the light can't interact with the receptors in her eye?

I tend to give superhero stuff a pass on that, as long as they stay consistent with the rules they set up. One of the things that really did bug me about the last Superman (not the current one, the one before) was the scene with the plane. And he ends up in the stadium, holding up the plane by it's nose at ~45 degree angle. As if a plane cold support it's entire weight on 20 square inches worth of it's nose, and Superman wouldn't have been left holding two broken scraps, while the plane crashed to the ground... Ruined the entire movie for me.